But I'm not at all interfering with someone's will by having my own job. Perhaps the hiring manager is. Perhaps society is. But I'm not going take responsibility for the culture we find ourselves in, that's original sin stuff.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Attempt at a WLHP definition of evil personhood. Thoughts?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Pardon the interjection? I think the larger point is not that taking the job is evil. It's that the metric of "infringement on another's will" is not feasible. Although it's normal and natural to start there in this context for those who lift up freedom as the highest ideal. (And for those who desire to point at a law-giving-deity as the "evil-one".)
But there is an inherent paradox that cannot be avoided. If "infringement on another's will" is evil, then preventing that infringement is itself an infringement. That's where the analogy of taking a job becomes applicable.
You've not had the kind of job where it's a coveted position that someone else wants? You are fortunate. I see these sorts of things happen on the regular - working with undergrads who want to get into med school, for example? There's an abundance of qualified candidates but only so many openings. The ones who get in stop others from doing so who were also well-qualified, perhaps cutting them out from that career field entirely. It's something a lot of my students worry about as part of their application process because they can do everything right but still not get in because of too few openings nationwide.
If infringement is evil, how is it preventing it evil?
I guess I just don't buy into this original sin based mindset where the way society works is my fault and I am guilty for it. I myself am a student hoping to teach, but if I get the job over someone else, I'm not the one who decided, nor did I choose for there to be only one position, nor am I responsible for our wage slave culture.You've not had the kind of job where it's a coveted position that someone else wants? You are fortunate. I see these sorts of things happen on the regular - working with undergrads who want to get into med school, for example? There's an abundance of qualified candidates but only so many openings. The ones who get in stop others from doing so who were also well-qualified, perhaps cutting them out from that career field entirely. It's something a lot of my students worry about as part of their application process because they can do everything right but still not get in because of too few openings nationwide.
Which to be fair, it was a lhp definition.
I'm kind of curious - why do you feel this is an "original sin" mindset? I mean, I'm Pagan - I don't believe in that so I'm not writing any of this with that perspective in mind. Could you elaborate on the connection you're seeing there so I can understand a bit better? Maybe I'm not understanding because I don't see any of this about "guilt" or anything? I look at things in terms of interconnectedness and how it's all woven together. Or maybe I'll just stay confused... haha.
Specifically addressing getting a prestigious job: it is not the fault of the person who obtains the job that someone else doesn't get their will. It seems you are trying to make the individual take on that "sin" of keeping someone from their will. But it is not the person who is evil, but the society they are stuck living in, the people who uphold that status quo, etc. The evil is what requires us to slave our lives away just to meet basic needs in the first place, to make wanting a certain enslaved role your will. To try and pin that on the victim seems quite akin to original sin.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It is infringing on evil.
If infringement is the benchmark, (infringement = evil), then infringement-on-evil is evil.
I see what you mean, but if we are allowed to punish wrongdoers it isn't an issue. When they decide to disregard the will of others they opt out of the agreement and lose the right to their own. If they can't overcome the disposition they can punish the wrongdoers.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The punishment is an infringement. If infringement is the metric, then, the punishment is evil. Regarding "opting out", that sounds like a social-contract which is an infringement on the will of each of the included parties. If infringement is the metric, the social-contract is evil.
It just doesn't work. If "infringement-on-will" is the benchmark for evil, then anything other than anarchy is evil.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Are you referring to maslow's heirarchy? If so, any rule of any kind potentially compromises self-actualization.
Again anything other than anarchy is evil if this is the standard.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Hey Ed, It's great to see you!
Hmm I see what you mean.
Yeah this is definitely the best objection so far imo.
Okay, I think I understand a bit better, even if I don't agree with your interpretation of things here. Because I see everything as fundamentally interconnected and interdependent, I don't really read this as an either-or sort of thing. I mean, society is made up of humans (people)... they're both part of the interdependent web of existence and thus both "responsible" for the way things are. I don't really moralize all this in terms of "good" or "evil" or any of that, but I can see how moralizing it would produce some uncomfortable conclusions.
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
Heyo
Veteran Member
That depends on your answer to the Trolley Problem. Is it evil to let a bigger evil happen if you could have prevented it by committing a lesser evil yourself? Or, put another way, are there moral imperatives to act a certain way or is morality simply to refrain from acting in an immoral way?
Yet good Christians, in opposing armies, seem to ignore this, and still believe their actions honorable.
